Skip to main content

But before we get to that, just so we're clear on what Bush is vetoing:

Bush's veto pen kills troops.

Everyone on the wrong side of this ad saw their political careers end.

Bush's veto sends troops to Iraq without rest, without armor, and without training. No president in American history has ever abandoned troops in the field to die. But George W. Bush is about to show you he's "man enough" to do it, just to prove he can.

That's because he's not serious about accomplishing anything in Iraq. Nobody could look at his record of failure there and conclude otherwise.

As for his concern about setting an artificial deadline, with or without this bill there's already an artificial deadline: January 20, 2009. Because it's simply not physically possible to elect another president so willfully ignorant and as openly traitorous as this one. In short, George W. Bush is the only person on the planet who believes this occupation can feasibly last one day longer than his term in office. So anyone who pretends that moving the date up a few months is going to make a damned bit of difference in this disaster just isn't doing any serious thinking about the situation.

But in the meantime, George W. Bush will veto troop readiness, and then lock himself in his bunker while they die.

And he's chomping at the bit to do it, too.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:10 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  a ballsy post, kagro (28+ / 0-)

    but excellent framing.  This is a showdown for the ages...

    Republicans: By their rotted fruit you shall know them.

    by thereisnospoon on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:09:58 PM PDT

  •  Don't tempt fate (17+ / 0-)

    Because it's simply not physically possible to elect another president so willfully ignorant and as openly traitorous as this one.

    I'd like to believe that. But the dark other side seems hell-bent on trying to do just that.

    In New York, we eat wingnuts for breakfast. And we blog, too.

    by MBNYC on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:10:41 PM PDT

  •  yeah Bush (15+ / 0-)

    is the Worst thing to ever happen to our troops. With many of having family over there, I sure as hell do not feel confident that he has their best interest at heart.  In fact, far from it.

    And the troops increasingly are losing all respect and trust for Bush as well.

    Just today, I held back tears speaking to my nephew who regards me as his mother figure as I encouraged him before he return there to finish his tour. I feel so badly for him and all the troops who feel like they are letting down their families and not being there for their kids. And my heart breaks for them as they did not cause this mess , that heartless bastard Bush caused every bit of it.

    Next to the word, "Unselfish" and the word, " Courageous" in the Dictionary are two Words: Elizabeth Edwards.

    by wishingwell on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:10:56 PM PDT

  •  This war (17+ / 0-)

      Is not about fighting terrorists.

      This war is not about fighting terrorists.

      This war is not about fighting terrorists.

    •  There is no war. (16+ / 0-)

      This is an occupation.

      Wars can be won or lost.

      This is not a war.

      •  Can anyone find an occupation... (6+ / 0-)

        in history that didn't end up being a complete clusterfuck?

        The lesson of that history is that you must not despair, that if you are right, and you persist, things will change. -Howard Zinn

        by blueyedace2 on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:20:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Kagro X Can U Answer my questions... (4+ / 0-)

        How does this play out?

        So Bush vetos the bill, then what do the dems do?

        They send him a second bill w/out the clause demanding a definite pull out date?

        Do the dems then get painted as caving to Bush?

        It's not easy being a Floridian.

        by lawstudent922 on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:21:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's the question: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bablhous, galaxy33

          They send him a second bill w/out the clause demanding a definite pull out date?

          They can do that.  They can send him the exact same bill over again.  They can send him a bill he would like even less.

          "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

          by LithiumCola on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:56:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Send the same thing back (0+ / 0-)
            What Democrats should do is send the exact same bill back.  Time is running out on getting money to provide for the troops for next month.  It is important that the message must be that they do not have any time to waste debating any new bill.  Within 24 hours of the veto, Bush should see a carbon copy of the original bill appear on his desk.  Make it clear that it is Bush's choice: troops run out of money in one month or in 18 months.  Make it clear, as Kagro said, that it is Bush's veto pen that is threatening to kill the troops.
        •  They want to run ads like that on us (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lawstudent922, Simplify, galaxy33

          How does this play out? So Bush vetos the bill, then what do the dems do?

          Here is the way I read it.  Even before Bush does his veto he has had Gates announce that he is already cutting back on certain critical things.

          This is from today's AM press briefing

          There is one new data point on this today that I want to make you aware of. . . .  Just this morning the Department of Defense notified Congress that in order to meet the force protection needs of the Marine Corps and the Army we are borrowing funds from other important Marine and Army procurement programs. That is taking funding intended for medium tactical vehicle replacement, Humvees and Humvee equipment, the tactical communications modernization program, and upgrades to other vehicles.

          Get the picture.  It is just like that ad at the top of this thread.  I can see it now.  Rather than just some dummies with vests and an AK47 they use an RPG and a Humvee without up armor on. The crash dummies in Army uniforms get broken to pieces.  Then we shoot the same RPG at an up armored Humvee and the "occupants" are OK.

          Then, just like in that ad, the voice come on and says Democrat X voted for a bill he knew would result in preventing our troops from getting these armor kits.

          So of course we can't let this happen and so unless we intend to cave right away we need to have some small but clean bills that take away this sort of gambit.  We call in Gates and demand that he tell  us what he needs to start to get both the force protection vehicles and the up armor kits for existing Humvees.

           

          •  This REALLY pisses me off! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fred in Vermont, lawstudent922

            With a half-trillion dollar defense budget, these people are threatening to de-fund the needs of the troops in the field in order to make a point!  That's inhuman - and there are still 29% of the population that think this is a good idea?!

            Just take 'em all out on the White House lawn, tie their hands behind their backs and turn the troops' families loose on 'em.

            (-5.25, -7.95) "The only real questions are "Who's getting screwed" and "Who's doing the screwing?" - Molly Ivins (1944-2007)

            by SueDe on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:42:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You've got the picture all right (0+ / 0-)

              With a half-trillion dollar defense budget, these people are threatening to de-fund the needs of the troops in the field in order to make a point!  

              You have got the picture.  We need to drag Gates in front of Murtha and Levin and give him a spanking for being willing to play this game.  Then we make him admit that he does not need to make such cuts yet.  I am not at all sure that at this point he will be willing to stonewall those committees.

               

          •  Andrew Sullivan on Countdown (0+ / 0-)

            made a similar point, that the dems have made the point they wanted to make and should just go ahead w/ the funding rather than pushing this any further. I can't remember his exact words but I appreciated what he was saying. He specifically pointed out that it will be a difficult decision for the dems morally to allow bush to continue w/ this suicide mission but that politically it is better to let bush "own" the Iraq war  ...watch at midnight if you missed it.

            It's not easy being a Floridian.

            by lawstudent922 on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 07:47:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They kept saying that the Democrats are (0+ / 0-)

              defunding the war. They've been saying this on every program tonight. It's got to be the newest Talking Point.

              And...it's totally bogus.

              The Dems funded the war and then some. They did their duty as Congress, the purse-holder. They provided the money.

              If Bush vetoes the bill, HE defunds the war. It's his choice to veto - therefore, it's his choice to defund 'the troop'.

              He's threatening the safety of the troops by making the conscious decision to veto the bill that would deliver the money.

              He's stomping his widdle feet and threatening to hold his breath and we'll be sorry.

              Do not allow them to make us responsible for both our actions and his, for that is the plan. We are not responsible for his actions and reactions, only our own. He is responsible for his own.

              We've really got to stop buying into the MSM memes.

              If I had my druthers, I'd tighten that bill up after he vetoes - provide a little less money and pull in the 'Go Home' dates. Take some honey out of the pot. Each time the bill is vetoed, fund the war but make it a diminishing return. The longer he dicks around, the more the noose tightens and the less he gets. Hell, if you want to fund it, fund it for a quarter at a time. Make him come back again and again.

              It's the only way to deal with him. If the Dems fold, he'll take up the slack as fast and as brutally as he can - he lives for 'payback'.

              He's the original 'give him an inch and he'll take a mile' kid.

              Nope.

              Not one more inch.

              We must finance stem cell research. How else will Congress grow a spine?

              by bablhous on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:00:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  There is no war, this is a debacle! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous, blueyedace2, Randolph06

        For Impeachment of George Bush!

        by Retiredgrunt on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:28:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  YEAH! (0+ / 0-)

        Don't tell them to end the war! Tell them to END THE OCCUPATION .

        by CTMET on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:11:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It is not about 9/11 (4+ / 0-)

      It is not about 9/11
      It is not about 9/11
      It is not about 9/11

  •  Everything you say is true, Kagro X (19+ / 0-)

    But in the meantime, George W. Bush will veto troop readiness, and then lock himself in his bunker while they die.

    When I was young, I didn't believe there was true evil on this earth. Sometimes I wish I'd never grown up.

  •  It's actually heartbreaking. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, blueyedace2, JML9999

    That he can't see to come to a REAL compromise,

  •  Except... (15+ / 0-)

    That's because he's not serious about accomplishing anything in Iraq.

    Except...
    Billions for Halliburton Exec's pockets

    Opening Day - April 1, 2007

    by MikeBaseball on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:12:01 PM PDT

    •  Didn't take Mark Pryor long (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous

      to change his vote on the supplemental bill after the cubs sent him to triple A now did it.

    •  Just curious (5+ / 0-)

      how can we find out exactly how much Halliburton has made off with in this "war"?  I very much think that this is all it's about.  The billions that both Cheney and Bush will make out with after this is over...

      Melissa

      Dissent is Patriotic

      by mwjeepster on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:36:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it's about Dubya believing (0+ / 0-)

        God put him in the presidency to combat evil.  And as long as he thinks he's doing that, he won't budge because he believes he's right, and history will prove him right.

        He has right-wing religious leaders into the White House to reinforce this belief and his resolve, and he surrounds himself with loyalists so he never has to hear a dissenting voice.  He doesn't give a damn about the public reaction to what he's doing or the re-election chances of congressional Repubicans.

        MSM pundits are now talking about how "alone" he is.  Not true.  There's still not a dissenting word from the sycophants around him in the White House - just bunker mentality and planning, planning.  Like a pilot trying to pull out of a dive, the whole group of them is just thinking about what else they can try to keep from crashing.

        (-5.25, -7.95) "The only real questions are "Who's getting screwed" and "Who's doing the screwing?" - Molly Ivins (1944-2007)

        by SueDe on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:56:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  We tell the truth and (8+ / 0-)

    they call it hell, to paraphrase Harry S. Truman.

    Bush is meeting his karma.

    "We don't need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party." John Edwards 2/22/07

    by TomP on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:12:12 PM PDT

  •  Kagro X (8+ / 0-)

    has a way with words.  George Bush...not have way.

    We don't have time for short-term thinking.

    by Compound F on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:16:49 PM PDT

  •  Maybe January 20 2009 (8+ / 0-)

    is an artificial deadline for the Bush administration's demise. Why not sooner?

    •  Right, He'll Just Bide His Time.... nt (0+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:11:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Americans might vote for war (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andrew Ekud

      Maybe January 20 2009 . . . is an artificial deadline for the Bush administration's demise. Why not sooner?

      Or later. 

      This idea that things have to change with a new president is not a sure thing.  Suppose for a moment that we are still in Iraq in 08 and things are still looking bad (very likely I think).  A Democrat calling for withdrawal is running against a Republican who is says if the Democrat is elected all hell will break lose.

      Then, in September or October of '08 Bush does something that makes sure that all hell does break lose and it seems like it may become a question as to whether we will be able to even extract our troops unless reinforcement arrive in time.

      The Republican candidate (who looks like he could play president on a TV series) announces that this disaster has happened because the terrorists think the Democrat is going to win but if the Americans will just elect a strong Republican there is still hope. 

      Then if it looks like this is not working we have a mid-October terror attack at home together with "chatter" that al Qaeda intends to send suicide bombers to the polls on election day and so we need to set up Homeland Security check points at certain polls (whose location of course can not be disclosed in advance for national security reasons).  Because of a SNAFU there is only one metal at many of the most active polling places and the lines become very long.

      This is serious stuff.  The war party is not going to give up without a fight.

  •  Bush is (13+ / 0-)

    taking the soldiers hostage, holding them for ransom.

    That's a ransom of your money, to the tune of 2000 Americans each putting up about $300 for every soldier the Republicans hold hostage.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:17:54 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, blueyedace2

      he is using the troops as pawns for his war that no one but the far right erratic fringe and the corporations want. He is and will be shown to be a troop hater.

      I'm thinking that the Senate House conference meeting on this supplemental may just come up with a stripped down version that only includes military spending but keeps in the benchmarks. As this is a supplemental I could go along with that as long as the benchmarks for troop redployment are kept in.

      There will be other bills to attach the farm bill or other so called pork projects to in the very near future.

    •  Not our money (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous

      holding them for ransom. That's a ransom of your money,

      Not our money, this is all "off budget" so it comes out of our kids' inheritance.  They would probably spend the money foolishly anyway so it is not really problem.  And besides the Rapture may come first.

  •  Has a better sentence ever been written? (9+ / 0-)

    Because it's simply not physically possible to elect another president so willfully ignorant and as openly traitorous as this one.

  •  So basically... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, bablhous, blueyedace2

    Congress passes the Give the President One Last Chance to Steal Our Thunder By Letting Him Do a Noble Thing Before Election Day, and We Give Him Money Too act of 2007.

    And this guy vetoes it.  
     
    Next up we have the Give George Bush a Bazillion Dollar Check No Questions Asked act, which he will then veto.  

    You know, maybe he just forgot how to use a fountain pen and doesn't want to tell anyone.

  •  Practically speaking (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, kaye

    How does this play out?

    So Bush vetos the bill, then what do the dems do?

    They send him a second bill w/out the clause demanding a definite pull out date?

    Do the dems then get painted as caving to Bush?

    Does anyone know the answer to some or all of my questions?

    It's not easy being a Floridian.

    by lawstudent922 on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:20:48 PM PDT

    •  Murtha has the first shot at it... (5+ / 0-)

      ...again, in the House Appropriations Committee.  So I think the biggest change we'll see is the same bill with maybe some of the "pork" stripped out.

      Bush doesn't listen to anyone but the competing voices in his head. The winner he calls "God" and runs with it.

      by dov12348 on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:26:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is what he said other day with Wolf (4+ / 0-)

        the video at C&L (or YouTube) with Wolf trying to grill Murtha about "aren't you just going to have to give him the money anyway, after he vetoes it? You can't NOT give him the money..."

        And Murtha relays the "he chose to not fund the troops, he's overspent on other things, and now he wants even more; well he's going to have to play on our terms, not his" (not exact quote).

        When Wolf pressed him further about "what do you do if her vetoes it?" -- Murtha talked a bit about a "clean bill" with no additional tag-on funding projects. But he said they will not yield on the timetable/benchmarks.

        I hope they mean it.

  •  Give him a 3 month Supplemental... (6+ / 0-)

    Make all the R's in Congress come back 3 mos from now and vote on the war again.  Then, make them come back 3 mos after that and vote still another time.

    Perhaps there's not much that the Dems will do to stop this war.  They sure as hell can, however, make it really painful for the R's who are up in 2008.  Maybe, at some point, those R's will decide that it's not worth sacrificing their own hides anymore.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:24:43 PM PDT

    •  Three month supplemental with (5+ / 0-)

      hard line achievment incentives built in. Kinda like his " No Child Left Behind" act.

      Make him achieve to inane testing of his programs like he has subjected our children and teachers too.

      You would see a temper tantrum to beat all tantrums if he had to comply to that.

    •  Yes, three-month supplemental-- (0+ / 0-)

      they should definitely have to vote on the war over and over.  I can hope that some of the Republicans get self-protective enough to shift their votes and let us get the troops out by Aug. 2008. Even if the chances are slim, we should make clear that the Democrats will never stop pushing.  And that the Republicans will pay a political price.

      Kagro X, very good diary.

      •  I suppose I should read all the comments (0+ / 0-)

        before commenting. I just said something of the same sort back up the thread a bit.

        'Great minds...'

        We must finance stem cell research. How else will Congress grow a spine?

        by bablhous on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:25:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Theoretically I guess we should, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bablhous

          but it's not really possible when a thread is growing fast. New comments keep popping in. So some ideas get repeated.  But then, lots of people only read part of the thread, so hey, some repetition may be good.

          At least when it's great minds like us. ;)

  •  I really, really think it's time to... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flatford39, blueyedace2, galaxy33

    ...broaden our view of this. Bush is just one man. Stupid yes. Stubborn yes.

    But...

    We are not stuck in the quagmire of The MeatGrinder because of one man. If only it were that simple.

    No, all of us are complicit in this.

    How's that you say?

    Well read my post: Military Keynesianism: What is that and why should I care?

    Then buy and read 'Nemisis' by Chalmers Johnson.

    Short form: We've got a lot to do to change how this nation's government goes about 'protecting' us.

    Starting with stringing up a few war profiteers from the nearest light pole.

    And then taking a long, hard look in the mirror.

    'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

    by Nestor Makhnow on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:24:51 PM PDT

    •  Information Iron Curtain (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, galaxy33

      No average reasonable person in this country has a remote chance of knowing what's going on, they have to be exceptionally aggressive followers of current events and unusually skeptical.

      When we're at the point of accusing the masses of using government wrongly, occam's razor says it's a lot simpler therefore a better explanation that there is fundamental system design failure.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:16:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not 'The Masses' who are... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous
        ...using the government wrongly. It's a small cabal of war material manufacturers allied with the DOD and bought and paid for legislators who vote again and again for...

        New aircraft carriers...Osama chuckles at that.

        New nuclear submarines...

        Space weaponry...

        The V-22...never gonna be capable of controlled flight.

        You don't have to be a genius to know what's up. Just look at the numbers.

        Yeah, there's a lot of 'black' budget but that can change with one vote in Congress. It won't until people realize that we don't need to spend.

        500 billion dollars a year lining the pockets of Bush and Cheney's masters pockets.

        'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

        by Nestor Makhnow on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:44:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Poppy Bush is weeping right now, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhfactor, dksbook, blueyedace2

    losing sleep, thinking about how he should have 'pulled out' on Babs that night, thus avoiding this catastro-phuck!

    The original Star Trek is the Word! Bones: Chapter 2, verse 9

    by steelman on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:26:31 PM PDT

  •  First time using this Kossackian compliment: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, blueyedace2

    EXCELLENT rant!!

  •  George W. Bush: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, kaye

    chicken shit traitor.

    Democrats: Cleaning up Republican messes since 1933.

    by DCDemocrat on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:31:56 PM PDT

  •  So. We are leaving. Just a question of when. (5+ / 0-)

    You know it. i know it. Every Iraqi knows it. The terrorists know it. The insurgents know it. With or without a formal deadline. We are leaving. We are not going to occupy Iraq for the next millenium/until the oil runs out whichever comes first.  We are leaving.

    There. I said it first (TM). Every other plan is just negotiation around when.  

    For the 'Publicans the timeline is as follows:

         Get the bases up to speed.
         Get the oil contracts cast in stone.
         Get the Iraq police side of the army up to enough speed to incarcerate and torture everyone who disagrees with the first two items.
         Take no notice of the cost in blood and money it takes to do the above items.
         
    Bush's exit plan from Iraq is either A) the heliocopter from the roof of the White House Jan 20, 2009 (someone else thought of that one) or B) get impeached.

    When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general's office, politics is the primary consideration. The rule of law goes out the window. US Attny Eubanks

    by sailmaker on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:33:33 PM PDT

  •  When I crunch evrything I've been following latel (6+ / 0-)

    ... as much as it's obvious Bush is an obstinate moron with no care about America the country, or 99% of its people, the thing that I take away the most is the growing realization articulated on thread after thread here:

    that all of this obstinance is a calculated move driven by Cheney, to force the issue of Unitary Executive into the Supreme Court, and try to drive changes in the interpretation of the Constitution as applies to Chief Executive powers, including the power to unilaterally make war.

    I can't remember now whose comment it was, but within the past week there were really insightful comments re how Cheney has never forgiven the need for Richard Nixon to have resigned, and he was equally pissed at the at Reagan's staff hauled up before Congressional Committees investigating Iran Conta scandal...

    The discussions here, off of those comments, all made perfect sense -- and explained the "fuck you" attitude towards Congress which began years back as proof of Bush's arrogance and the over-reaching of the GOP with what they considered a mandate to do whatever they wanted in their righteous cause to fight terror over there so we don't have to fight here.

    But the more outrageous Bush's defiance became, the more people characterized it as extreme hubris and temper tantrum.  While I think that's true, has Cheney, behind the scenes, been "emboldening" his Chief Executive in Name Only to "stand firm, be consistent, people love it when you don't roll over, it's your defining trait, trust me, it's the right thing to do" etc? And Bush's hubristic view of himself as "strong" and "won't back down" and "bring em on" serves mostly Cheney's end-game desire to leave his own legacy -- to bring about the very thing people say Bush is crazy about: forcing a constitutional crisis that gets tied up in courts with Republican stacked Court likely to rule in their favor?

    I say this because as stupid as he is, he does have advisors he trusts -- Cheney, Karen Hughes, Condi. Wouldn't Karen Hughes, immoral as she is, recognize the political expediency of showing some room for negotiation, and a softening of the bombastic behavior, in favor of keeping the GOP in favor with the American people?

    Does Bush really care about the perpetuation of the Republican party? (maybe yes) Or has he been goaded all along to create such extremist dissention, even amongst his own party members, so that he can be seen as obstinate by everyone -- thus pushing Congress to say "Fine. You want to go all the way to the Courts? You got it" -- ensuring Cheney/Bush of their opportunity to create the Cheney legacy of an Executive Branch no longer constrained by checks and balances?

    I don't know -- it just seems to me that they don't care how they demolish the country, as long as they go down fighting til the end,with no one being able to say later: They FINALLY backed down. That may be their only hope now -- to go down fighting for what cheney set out to do from the start. ???

    •  Okay...But (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rhfactor

      If Cheney's sole goal is to codify the "unitary executive" with a SCOTUS ruling, where do the 2008 elections figure into the equation?

      Why would they continue to pursue this knowing that a Dem president is highly likely?  

      Right the Wrongs...Gore in 08!

      by creeper on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:10:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look The Federal Govt Is Running Against Dems (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rhfactor, galaxy33, Andrew Ekud

        right now realtime in the 2008 race. That's what the US att'y hearings show, numerous departments of government feds and regional are working against electing Dems as we speak, on a breathtaking scale.

        They're rather obviously figuring they don't necessarily lose the WH and they could regain the Senate.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:19:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  i don't know, i'm not a good "pol" thinker (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous, Andrew Ekud

        So maybe I am way offbase. But do you get the impression that Cheney is strategically trying to set up a GOP win in 2008? or is he more interested in pushing this into court?

        Look, here's a guy who was dumped out of a job when Poppy was defeated by Clinton. And all these guys, like Rumsfeld, Perle, etc went off to do deep-thinking about the future.  They WROTE OFF the next 8 years as the temporary domain of Democrats. And they would use that thinktank time to try to engineer a massive strategy to not only take back the White House in 00, but also to create a permanent majority, partially by the conditioning of the American public via GOP-fellow-thinktank  "products" like Fox News, and also with the intimidation of corporate news... that is, AFTER than "new Pearl Harbor" ushered in an age of new fear, and an atmosphere conducive to stripping powers of citizens, and Congress, in favor of the Executive Branch.

        PNAC was crafted as early as 1993, right? (There was some Perle book that came before, which was the foundation for the more codified PNAC long-term plan)

        It is impossible, in my view, to read any of the PNAC tenets, still in plain daylight online for all to see, and routinely still ignored by U.S. press,  and not see that the strategies being pursued and executed today all -- and I mean ALL -- derive from that Master Plan. A master plan so thorough as to bear the name "project for New American Century" -- 100 years.

        Thus, with that kind of timeline, to a "Dick Cheney Patriot", what's 8 years out of 90? Again, I don't claim to have thought this out thoroughly. i am just trying to "think like Cheney" (as anathema as that is to me)... Based on the lonnnng 8 years of the Clinton interruption, Cheney is an extraordinarily patient man, who sets multiple chains of events into motion, on arclines that may play out 8, 10, 15 years later.

        I think he believes himself to be the ultimate genius of the NeoCons... And finally, let's remember that PNAC isn't necessarily a "Republican" phenomenon. If one views it as a Military Industrial Complex Sustainability Project, then he and companies like Halliburton make great money during "good times" and "bad" (boo-hoo, Dems are in office.. :(  )

        But what's that to Dick Cheney? His constituency are the multinational corporations, and the monied elite in the energy & armamaments & military-industrial infrastructure industries... It could be that he just aligns himself with republicans because they are the force who can achieve his end goals.

        Anyway, I'm just vamping here... trying to wrestle with how these super-experienced Bush 1 Players would steer Junior off a cliff... unless it was their plan.

        •  Maybe There's Another Way To Keep (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rhfactor

          Dems out of the White House in 2009.

          I don't see Cheney going to all this trouble only to leave the decision up to the fickle electorate.  The plan is essentially flawed when you superimpose it on a true democracy.  

          I think they have a strategy for 2008...and you're not going to like it.

          Right the Wrongs...Gore in 08!

          by creeper on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:57:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Bush has already told you that he will never (4+ / 0-)

    back down as far as Iraq goes:

    Look at this article:

    Bush plays superhero in Iraq

    Bush says he is fighting a battle against 'pure evil' in Iraq, so that the 'pure evil' doesn't come to America to get us.

    He will not listen to reason, and neither will the Bush base of 30%.  They have drank the kool aid and they fully believe it.  They are thoroughly propagandized.

    And I think Bush's rhetoric, which the GOP on the Hill have used for so long, has trapped them.  Many of them can't even if they wanted to, come to their senses and agree to bring the troops home.  They have gone to their constituents and said too many times that if we come home the terrorists will follow us back.  They have said too many times that we must have complete 'victory' in Iraq.  They have said over and over that us pulling out of Iraq would be a victory for Al Queda.  They can't, at this point, say to their base that it is not worth it for us to stay in Iraq.  Bush's rhetoric has trapped his entire party, so all they can do is pray that Iraq looks drastically better heading into 2008.

    Sometimes we act as if they have an option of dumping Bush for sensible policy on Iraq but they really don't have that option.  Their own fearmongering has trapped them.

    What that means for us, and America and Iraq, is that the president's party is far less flexible than it should be, based on the reality of the situation and the reality of the opinion of the American people.  It means that the troops will never come home under a republican president (unless funds are cut off or there is an impeachment).

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:37:21 PM PDT

    •  But Think of the Economics of Being Republican-- (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rhfactor, bablhous, duha, galaxy33

      If you vote to convict Bush, where in the name of Global Trade will you work for the rest of your career? How're you going to fund a re-election campaign? Who'd hire you to consult or lobby for them when you go to the private sector?

      The m-i-c wants mideast war and empire and it wants them badly. It's going to look very dimly on anybody who betrays it.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:22:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They pray for better or lots worse (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duha

      Bush's rhetoric has trapped his entire party, so all they can do is pray that Iraq looks drastically better heading into 2008.

      Exactly.  Or failing that they will have to pray that things somehow get so bad that people can be frightened into turning to a  "daddy" Republican to save them from disaster.

       

  •  Bush reminds me of a child (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, blueyedace2, Judge Moonbox

    He insists on getting his way despite the consequences. He claims we don't care when in reality it is because we care so much we even make the attempt in spite of his threats and spin.

    He says we are legislating failure but really, how much more of his failure must we endure there before he'll concede there will be no success for his war of retribution?

    He would have the troops stay there to await their deaths fully-funded. We want to fully-fund getting them home where they've always belonged.

    Thank you for this great coming together of forceful words. It helps me to feel better that we are standing up to this bully.

    Mais, la souris est en dessous la table, le chat est sur la chaise et le singe est... est... le singe est disparu! -- Eddie Izzard

    by CSI Bentonville on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:37:52 PM PDT

  •  The combination of Bush's blindness (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    creeper, Judge Moonbox

    ignorance, stubborness and arrogance is breathtaking. I honestly cannot wrap my brain around this.

  •  and he sleeps well at night too. pathetic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kaye, galaxy33

    psycho delusional

  •  It's a bit more complicated than one commercial (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kaye, Judge Moonbox
    Yeah, we have to fight sound-bite with sound-bite, and it helps a great deal to tell the truth in ours, but I think we're over-simplifying things to say "George W. Bush is the only person on the planet who believes this occupation can feasibly last one day longer than his term in office".  Democrats take money from companies that support the war, too.  And we still have Afghanistan to deal with. Heck, Osama bin Laden might be found or another terrorist attack might coincidentally happen just when the war supporters need it the most.

    We need to get and keep the Republicans out of power to fix the mess they've made, but it's not going to be a matter of leaving Iraq on Day 1.  We'll be cleaning up conservative crap for generations.

    "What doesn't have credibility today is the truth." -- Bill Moyers, The Daily Show 6/22/05

    by Baron Dave on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:43:24 PM PDT

  •  HRC also for prolonging occupation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cyphrus42

    In short, George W. Bush is the only person on the planet who believes this occupation can feasibly last one day longer than his term in office.

    Um, no.  Hillary Rodham Clinton also appears to be in favor of having the occupation go on indefinitely.

    •  I think Hillary (0+ / 0-)

      drank the kool-aid.

      Melissa

      Dissent is Patriotic

      by mwjeepster on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:48:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  She did actually just vote to withdraw. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kaye

      I could almost be labeled a Hill-hater, but doesn't she get credit for that?

      •  She will not withdraw troops (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous, galaxy33

        She has drunk the kool-aid and believes that we need a "long term presence" in Iraq.

        Sorry - HRC is going to continue the Bush occupation if we elect her.

        Just so we are all clear on that.

        -6.5, -7.59. All good that a person does to another returns three fold in this life; harm is also returned three fold.

        by DrWolfy on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:27:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I guess my question is unanswerable for you. (0+ / 0-)

          I suppose you think she should have voted with the Republicans?  

          I don't expect an answer to that one either.

          •  She is apparently playing the field (0+ / 0-)

            She has stated beyond any question that she plans to leave troops in iraq. She is FOR the occupation. It was probably to her benefit according to her consultants and advisors that she vote with the dems on this particular bill.

            •  You don't need to convince me (0+ / 0-)

              that Clinton is a soulless politician, a hawk and the worst possible choice we could make for our nominee. However I'm pretty sure   your statement: "She has stated beyond any question that she plans to leave troops in iraq." is  a falsehood.  

              Could you please document this supposed statement of hers with a link or citation?  Thanks in advance.

          •  I think she will vote however her DLC advisers (0+ / 0-)

            tell her to vote.  Not how she should vote or how her constituents want her to vote.

            To her, it's all about being in office, not serving the people.

            -6.5, -7.59. All good that a person does to another returns three fold in this life; harm is also returned three fold.

            by DrWolfy on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:29:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  hester, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, kaye, creeper

    the only way I could wrap my brain around this one is if, let's say a couple of really slick criminals got together and planned the ultimate heist - a war where a company they are heavily connected to profits to the extreme and they as indivduals reap the benefits.   I can't see any other explanation.  He doesn't give a sh*t about anyone or anything - all he seems to care about is making this "war" go on without end... and I can only think that that's because it's to his financial benefit.

    Melissa

    Dissent is Patriotic

    by mwjeepster on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:46:59 PM PDT

  •  No reason to vote for Dem candidates who won't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flumptytail, galaxy33

    renounce long-term bases in Iraq.  Which presidential candidates support getting ALL U.S. troops completely out of Iraq?

  •  Thanks for using the O word instead of the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kaye, flumptytail

    W word

    In short, George W. Bush is the only person on the planet who believes this occupation can feasibly last one day longer than his term in office.

    Don't tell them to end the war! Tell them to END THE OCCUPATION .

    by CTMET on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:08:05 PM PDT

  •  That's a great post, and a great frame... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kaye, galaxy33

    I dearly wish that Obama, Edwards and the people with a modicum of balls in the congressional caucus would start using this line.  It also pins the 08 GOP field down to either commit to withdrawl or suffer (lose) at the ballot box.  That's the frame: there is an artificial deadline, 1/20/09.  The debate is whether we send extra hundreds of our sons and daughters die in the meantime.  

  •  Bullshit: It's What's for Dinner. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous

    "George W. Bush’s tirade put on for the benefit of the Texas Cattlemen’s Beef Association could be accurately described as something between a sustained smirk and a shriek. In attitude and tone, the fruit of HW’s rickety loins came off looking and sounding like a 19 year-old frat boy refused a free hand job by a coed who obviously didn’t know who the fuck he was and who his Daddy is." - "Bullshit: It’s What’s For Dinner."

    JP
    http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogs...

    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:10:02 PM PDT

  •  Actually (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, Paper Cup, Andrew Ekud

    I'm not convinced Senator Clinton would end the war, regardless of public statements declaring otherwise.  She might, but I would imagine she'd take about three and a half years to do it.  Just a hunch.

    Rise like lions after slumber in unvanquishable number. Shake your chains to earth like dew, which in sleep had fallen on you. Ye are many - they are few.

    by cruz on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:13:14 PM PDT

  •  Bush should go... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flumptytail

    right to the fucking front lines and just see what the hell he is putting these men and women through. After all, according to McCain..it would be an oh so safe thing to do!
    Actually, never mind, I'm sure it still wouldn't matter to him. I swear the man has NO conscience.

    No Retreat Baby, No Surrender

    by WI Dem on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:19:32 PM PDT

  •  A next step (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, kaye, flumptytail

    Regardless of how this plays out, Democrats in DC need to also now make it absolutely clear that they expect any further requests for funding the Iraq occupation to be ON BUDGET starting with the next federal fiscal year.  Time to put an end to the financial voodoo of whether or not the costs of this debacle are on the books or not.  All that deficit spending needs to be ON THE BOOKS so BushCo can't trumpet their financial conservative credentials any more.

  •  Just like he proved he wasn't serious about (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kaye, galaxy33

    doing anything for Afghanistan. I still can't believe that war, that country, that population just dropped totally off the radar. I haven't even recovered from that shocking development. I hope our next president is a little more (a lot more) deliberative and less of a human tornado, but I'm not as optimistic about our chances of having someone really good. Not for lack of trying by you all though.

  •  Deadline, Schmeadline (0+ / 0-)

    The veto threat is a bluff.  If the Democrats call it, Bush takes the money and runs:  He signs the bill and disavows the deadline in a signing statement.

  •  IF the GENERALS don't desert him NOW, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous

    I WILL.

    Throw the President under the BUS please!!
    We need a Commander-in-Chief who knows his ass from his elbow!!!!

    Do not be distracted.  Abort the mission now!!!

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -E.Burke Women, Get It Now: HPV Test

    by ezdidit on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:49:34 PM PDT

  •  VoteVets.org (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, kaye

    If Bush vetoes never in the history of our nation has a President undermined the troops in the field quite like this.  He is denying the best MRAP trucks, PTSD and TBI treatment, and 20 million extra dollars to fix up the mess at Walter Reed.  He should be held responsible along with the other members who voted against the troops.

    Jon Soltz Iraq War Veteran Chairmen of VoteVets.org

    by Jon Soltz on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 07:39:23 PM PDT

  •  Language police: (0+ / 0-)

    Champing at the bit.  Champing.

  •  Interesting counterargument worth pondering (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kaye

    First, I love what you've said, KagroX. You hit the nail squarely on the head & drilled it to the heart of the issue. Bush has been, and will continue, to leave our troops vulnerable on a battlefield they have no business being in - simply for his ego.

    Yesterday, I was in the car and I heard Charles Osgood on his Osgood Report. He said several times that no President should ever agree to allow Congress to dictate to the Commander in Chief the details on how to operate. He implied that if Bush did not veto this bill, it would set a dangerous precident, taking away the power of the Commander in Chief.

    I don't really agree with him (since Congress has the responsibility to declare war and to fund or defund war), but I do see his point. He's basically saying that Congress doesn't have the constitutional right to declare when a war shall end. I'm curious what constitutional scholars think about this.

    I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

    by land of the free on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:14:15 AM PDT

  •  There are a couple of folks. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kaye

    with or without this bill there's already an artificial deadline: January 20, 2009. Because it's simply not physically possible to elect another president so willfully ignorant

    Don't know about this.  McCain seems just as determined to pull a rose out of Iraq's ass.  In fact, if it's not going much better by then, I think he'd send a much larger "surge" than Shrub has.  Further, while he'd use more diplomacy with Iran/Syria than Shrub, I think he's amenable to a strike on their nuclear plants.  HRC has said 2 different things about Iraq.  1 was that the war would end as you say, Kagro.  Jan. 20.  The other, however, was that she could not remove the troops but their mission would be vastly different.  If, and when, they continued to get killed then she would have to change that idea and re-engage the war.  Brownback, unlikely as he is to win, would also escalate it and almost certainly strike Iran.  Giuliani would probably hire a thug General with ties to Organized Crime...and find a pretty Iraqi girl to "visit".
    So it could go on past inauguration day.  Long past it.      

    "Tell us General, is it party time? And if it is can we all come?" - Men At Work.

    by rainmanjr on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:34:10 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site